JWST Status Update

[craighazan]

Wow!. Hello peoples of HIP65426 b.

NASA’s Webb Takes Its First-Ever Direct Image of Distant World – James Webb Space Telescope

blogs.nasa.gov

[2208.14990] The JWST Early Release Science Program for Direct Observations of Exoplanetary Systems I: High Contrast Imaging of the Exoplanet HIP 65426 b from 2-16 $μ$m

 

[P1LGRIM]

Hackers are hiding malware in a James Webb Telescope image

Cybersecurity experts say this James Webb image was likely chosen because its high-resolution properties hide the malware and even if a system flags it, a users will likely dismiss the warning.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[phunguss]

Step 1. Don't click on phishing scams or open M$ attachments.
"A blog post shared by Securonix about the campaign states the first part of the 'infection begins with a phishing email containing a Microsoft Office attachment."

 

[craighazan]

Don't open any emails with a Microsoft Office attachment, and enjoy the wonder of Neptune and it's many moons with Triton in the foreground.

Neptune (NIRCam)

webbtelescope.org

 

[craighazan]

Is there anything this iMac telescope can’t do!. A birds eye view of DART smashing into a asteroid!.

NASA Aiming James Webb at Asteroid as DART Prepares to Smash It — Futurism

Crossover Episode Who doesn't love an ensemble cast? In a pre-DART (Direct Asteroid Redirection Test) briefing, NASA revealed that the watchful eyes of Hubble, the James Webb Space Telescope, and even the Lucy craft will look on as the agency obliterates the tiny moonlet Dimorphos on September...

apple.news

 

[craighazan]

Mind is blown!.

Webb captures DART impact

www.esa.int

 

[etorix]

And now for something completely different… Not a space larch but the engagement rings of two hyper-massive stars:

Webb captures truly strange set of rings built by massive stars

Over the past 120 years, stellar winds have built concentric circles of dust.

arstechnica.com

 

[UtterDisbelief]

View attachment 554353

Hackers are hiding malware in a James Webb Telescope image

Cybersecurity experts say this James Webb image was likely chosen because its high-resolution properties hide the malware and even if a system flags it, a users will likely dismiss the warning.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Interesting. Thanks. I didn't know actual code could be run from within a photo, but I did know about steganography and such. The Comments EXIF field can hold all sorts, including other images.

All this is one reason I often ask posters not to upload multi-megabyte pictures, especially when B/W. One uploaded a 12MB file for a simple picture. When I point out possible issues I'm usually dismissed or told this is what iPhones do etc. etc. People should learn and be aware.

Rant over

 

[craighazan]

Interesting. Thanks. I didn't know actual code could be run from within a photo, but I did know about steganography and such. The Comments EXIF field can hold all sorts, including other images.

All this is one reason I often ask posters not to upload multi-megabyte pictures, especially when B/W. One uploaded a 12MB file for a simple picture. When I point out possible issues I'm usually dismissed or told this is what iPhones do etc. etc. People should learn and be aware.

Rant over

Good point!, you can change the file size before Attaching photos. I usually aim for 1MB, I am guilty of uploading fat files, but I am aware they should be smaller and JPEG preferably.
I love rants!

 

[UtterDisbelief]

Good point!, you can change the file size before Attaching photos. I usually aim for 1MB, I am guilty of uploading fat files, but I am aware they should be smaller and JPEG preferably.
I love rants!

Ha, that's fine, a colour pic of 1MB wouldn't set my alarm-bells off too much!

If you would like a good example of "friendly" steganography used in photos, then think about "watermarking". No, not that thing where you place a translucent/dim piece of text in a corner. That's clearly seen. Some companies offer digital "watermarking" where code is hidden in the JPG data. Remember JPG is compressed so who can spot it? Only special software can, and that is used to check if someone uses the picture unauthorised. It costs quite a bit to buy the software or Photoshop plug-in (or was last time I checked!)

You probably know about this from your typography/deisgn skills though.